Been watching some parts of it because they show it on the tv here all month. Been also watching the "special edition" dvd that looks poor without its 16x9 enchanced widescreen. And I'm baffled over how the Kubrick estate didn't include it on the recent Blu-Ray box set. I know there's a petition to try to get it released through Criterion but I dunno. I was wondering if we could create a letter to send to Warner Bros or something DEMANDING to get this motherfucker released soon?

I was wondering if we could create a letter to send to Warner Bros or something DEMANDING to get this motherfucker released soon?

i can't be bothered but i imagine Jan Harlan is the man to go to for this.

if someone here wants to find the dude's address then by all means send him a KIND letter outlining your rage about the situation.

i agree it is an outrage. btw, why are they showing Barry Lyndon all month in sweden?

I suppose I can try to find some kind of contact. And I will try to write letter and I promise I'll be gentle. I could post it here before sending so y'all can review it, yeah?

The reason they show BL in sweden is because the network channel Canal plus. They show it in 16x9 widescreen but it's only the Blu-Ray quality that's missing. They show all kind of movies on repeat all month.

... So a lot of you have probably been wondering, where are Warner's Blu-rays of Lolita and Barry Lyndon?

Well... that's a question we here at The Bits have been asking the folks at Warner Home Video for months now. And today, they surprised us with an answer! Yes, both Lolita and Barry Lyndon are currently being prepared for Blu-ray Disc release by the studio in 2011. And here's the even better news: They hinted that the films are going to be available both as singles AND as part of a new Stanley Kubrick Blu-ray Collection! We're waiting on more details, and no doubt it will be a while before the release gets officially announced, but it appears that Warner plans to really do their Kubrick catalog up right on Blu-ray in the new year!

Leon Vitali plays the role of Lord Bullington in Stanley Kubrick's 1975 film Barry Lyndon. During that shoot Vitali and Kubrick became friends, and Vitali collaborated with Kubrick as a personal assistant and sometimes casting director on all of Kubrick's films up until the director's death after the making of 1999's Eyes Wide Shut. Since that time Vitali has been closely involved in the adaptation of Kubrick's work for home video. He was in New York today to speak to the press in connection with both the 40th anniversary release on DVD and Blu-ray of Kubrick's 1971 A Clockwork Orange, and the upcoming Stanley Kubrick: Limited Edition Collection on Blu-ray and Stanley Kubrick: The Essential Collection on standard definition DVD. I took the opportunity to ask him about the controversy concerning the 1.78 framing of Barry Lyndon on Blu-ray, which caused me a certain amount of confusion and the online community of cinephiles and Kubrick fans a fair amount of concern/consternation. What follows below is the best I could get to a verbatim transcription of our exchange on the matter.

Glenn Kenny: "Well, there’s already controversy brewing because the Barry Lyndon Blu-ray is 1.78 and there’s some feeling that it should have been 1.66..."

Leon Vitali: "Well I can tell you what now, okay; never was it ever 1.66, it wasn’t shot in 1.66, we never released it in 1.66 in any format whether it’s film or television or DVD. It was 1.77. It was shot it…I mean , the difference between 1.77 and 1.78 is miniscule, you couldn’t see it with a magnifying glass. And anyone who thought it was meant to be in 1.66 is sadly delusioned. Seeing as I was there, at every stage of it; shooting and everything, I should know. I should know."

Glenn Kenny: "Well, that’s about as definitive an answer as we’re likely to get; so where does it come from, then? Where’s the 1.66 idea come from…?"

Leon Vitali: "It comes from people who think they know and weren’t there and have something to say about Stanley all the time. You know, when I first went to Los Angeles, I could go to a party, and somebody’s voice would go up saying, ‘Oh, yes, that’s Stanley,’ and ‘Oh, Eyes Wide Shut,’ and I thought ‘Do they know Stanley, is this common that people at parties talk about him in a loud voice?” But it wasn’t that, it was because they knew…I was there. And you get those idiots…truly, who think they know. [adopts orotund voice] ‘Stanley was a very philosophical guy.’ I say: bullshit."

There is also that part where some production pictures look and measure aspect ratio at 1.77 and even if that proof isn't valid who cares. 1.78.1 is an acceptable comprise between 1.85 and 1.66

But anyway This is a release that Actually makes me want to buy a great bluray player and larger hdtv. I already bought some hdmi cables lol and I'm tempted to buying this bluray soon without knowing when i will get a bluray player.

Some Came Running's Glenn Kenny has published a copy of a 12.8.75 letter written by Stanley Kubrick and sent to projectionists that states unequivocally that Barry Lyndon was shot at 1.66 and that it should be projected at this aspect ratio, "and in no event at less than 1.75 to 1."

12.8.75 letter from Stanley Kubrick to projectionists about the particulars of presenting Barry Lyndon in theatres.

This is the irrefutable, concrete, smoking-gun proof (which was supplied to Kenny by screenwriter and former Time critic Jay Cocks) that I've been right all along about this aspect-ratio brouhaha, and that Leon Vitali, former assistant to Kubrick who infamously declared at a New York press conference last month that the intended aspect ratio of Barry Lyndon was 1.77 to 1, and whose commitment to this piece of revisionist history led to Warner Home Video's Barry Lyndon Bluray being presented at 1.78 to 1, is dead wrong.

Yes, Kubrick states in the letter than he was willing to tolerate Lyndon being shown at a 1.75 to 1 aspect ratio. It is this allowance, apparently, that Vitali and Warner Home Video seized upon to justify their 1.78 to 1 aspect ratio determination. And yet -- let's try to not misunderstand -- Kubrick says in clear and unmistakable terms in the letter that Lyndon was shot in 1.66 and should be projected at that aspect ratio -- period, end of story and shut up.

Vitali and Warner Home Video were willfully wrong in their insistence upon presenting the Lyndon Bluray at 1.78 to 1, and now is the time for Vitali and Warner Home Video's Ned Price to stand up, man up, come clean, admit their mistake and pledge to re-issue a Barry Lyndon Bluray at the correct aspect ratio.

If I were Vitali, I would grab a fishing hat and a fake beard and hide out in the desert for a good two or three weeks until this matter blows over or at least settles down. For he has now been proven to have endorsed misinformation that has slightly distorted and diminished the presentation of a classic film.

12:05 pm Update: I've just spoken to Vitali at the Standard Film Company, where he works in some co-managing or partnering capacity with director-writer Todd Field. I asked for an email address, and sent him the URL of Kenny's article, and asked for a reply after he's had time to digest it.

I wrote the following to Kenny this morning: "EUREKA! What a SCORE!! Congrats to you, and thanks ever-so-much to Jay Cocks.

"I'm nonethless mystied by the response from a Warner Home Video rep, which you quote in your short piece about the letter: "We stand firmly that we are 100% in compliance with Mr. Kubrick's wishes" and that 'the letter from Kubrick to projectionists was the reference for our 1.78 aspect ratio call."

How does Kubrick specifying 1.66 to 1 and allowing that he will tolerate a 1.75 to 1 presentation become a "reference" for Warner Home Video's 1.78 aspect ratio call? By what kind of strange, Orwellian, logic-bending process did the WHV rep compose this sentence?